What Myth would you want to see busted?

[[FnG]magnolia]

two arguments in one month. I'm not doing well.

Out of morbid curiosity (damn son, you got owned), did you know anything about the subject matter at hand or was it a 'this is the internet and I can probably argue my way through this' mentality that took hold?

 

[Glaucus]

I thought I understood the mechanics.

 

[muon]

-----

 

[Linkex]

Much as i'm annoyed that i've come back to this thread to find 7 odd pages of arguing about the internal workings of choppers, i don't think its cool to have a go at Glaucus. He got into an internet debate, lost, and had the balls to come back and aknowledge it, where many others would slink off and pretend it never happened. I say good man, if i ever meet you in a pub, i'll buy you a pint.

the second pint is for the first proper suggestion of a myth to be busted, thatis remotley testable.

 

[D.P.]

The only reason he is wrong is because the rotor speed is actually controlled and torque is reduced.

Not one person until Eddie mentioned that, and without that subtlety, no one gave any logical explanation as to why he was wrong.

People may now take credit for what Eddie said and apply it in retrospect but they were coming up with BS reasons as to why it wouldn't fly from what I've read.

It is a shame that Glaucus is wrong because he was more correct in understanding the physics than more or less everyone else.

Most of the people saying Glaucus was wrong believe that a plane could not take off from a conveyor belt, and thus are truly ignorant of the physics.


if you had a a pair of rotor attached with frictionless bearings to a shaft connected to a rotating turntable, then the rotors wont rotate, merely the the shaft with the bearings. This case is like the plane on a conveyor, the rotors being unattached to the shaft.

 

[Bennie-Mac]

Are they really ribbed for her pleasure?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I thought I understood the mechanics.

This has got be a sig, surely. Guy battles over 4 pages, demanding that he's right and then we get a whimper, an acknowledgement, he's wrong, everyone is looking away to avoid the shame.

.


e : Wait! There's more! How deep does this rabbit hole go? (don't tell me, my word!)

 

[LeJosh]

Probably because of how convoluted it was.

I found it hilarious the whole way through, I'm just not a man to kick people when their down.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

This has got be a sig, surely. Guy battles over 4 pages, demanding that he's right and then we get a whimper, an acknowledgement, he's wrong, everyone is looking away to avoid the shame.

Fine, i'll bow out and apologise with tail between legs.

two arguments in one month. I'm not doing well.

Doesn't look like a whimper to me, sounds more like a man for apologising and saying he was wrong.
What more do you want him to do?

 

[Liampope]

The only reason he is wrong is because the rotor speed is actually controlled and torque is reduced.

Not one person until Eddie mentioned that, and without that subtlety, no one gave any logical explanation as to why he was wrong.

People may now take credit for what Eddie said and apply it in retrospect but they were coming up with BS reasons as to why it wouldn't fly from what I've read.

Er I said on about page 1 that if the rotors have a limited speed and you contra-rotate the heli at the same speed, then the rotor blades are clearly stationary wrt the ground . You don't need to understand how a real heli works to see that - it's just adding two opposing rotation speeds and getting 0. Well done Eddie though, and good on glacus for having the balls to admit he was making a mistake. Of course if you allow your mythical heli to have an engine that can run double speed, then the crazy centrifuge-heli can take off just fine, stability, falling apart, etc notwithstanding.

 

[Amleto]

I'm still confused. Ignoring actual real-world rpm constantness by torque fiddling, is it true that,

Any force imparted on to the fuselage of the aircraft is also imparted on to the rotors ...

or is that just a manifestation of the rpm limit?

 

[D.P.]

Er I said on about page 1 that if the rotors have a limited speed and you contra-rotate the heli at the same speed, then the rotor blades are clearly stationary wrt the ground . You don't need to understand how a real heli works to see that - it's just adding two opposing rotation speeds and getting 0. Well done Eddie though, and good on glacus for having the balls to admit he was making a mistake. Of course if you allow your mythical heli to have an engine that can run double speed, then the crazy centrifuge-heli can take off just fine, stability, falling apart, etc notwithstanding.

If the rotors were attached to the helicopter through frictionless bearings then even if the body of the helicopter was rotated the rotors would remain stationary. If you then applied a force to the rotors, perhaps little rockets attached to rotor tips..., then the rotors would rotate in the direction implied by the jets on rotor tips.

So the complexity arises in details of the mechanical coupling between the rotor and the helicopter body.

 

[Tombo]

I can picture Glaucus' face reading these replies.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Doesn't look like a whimper to me, sounds more like a man for apologising and saying he was wrong.
What more do you want him to do?

To make a point and work it through, which he did and you did not.

 

[FlamBango]

i want to see the myth busted that Kari is a bloke. So if she could just pop her top off and jiggle about for an hour, that would be a good episode for me.

 

[boxman2000]

Did man really land on the moon?

(The answer is no by the way)

Here here!

 

[Elixir]

Doesn't look like a whimper to me, sounds more like a man for apologising and saying he was wrong.
What more do you want him to do?

It's just quite amusing after he was belittling, condescending and fairly insulting about everyone else's lack of understanding which turned out to be his. Fair enough I'm sure some people were arguing incorrect points but most of us weren't.

 

[ubersonic]

Climate change being man made.

 

[Liampope]

If the rotors were attached to the helicopter through frictionless bearings then even if the body of the helicopter was rotated the rotors would remain stationary. If you then applied a force to the rotors, perhaps little rockets attached to rotor tips..., then the rotors would rotate in the direction implied by the jets on rotor tips.

So the complexity arises in details of the mechanical coupling between the rotor and the helicopter body.

Indeed, quite right. In fact a mythical helicoptor powered entirely by tip jets is an excellent demonstration of the 'helicoptor can take off' solution.

I'm still confused. Ignoring actual real-world rpm constantness by torque fiddling, is it true that,

or is that just a manifestation of the rpm limit?

Well, generally, if you pick up a heli by it's fuselage and shake it, the rotors will also shake, so of course loads on the fuselage will be imparted to the rotors . But I doubt that's what Eddie meant - more likely talking specifically about the coupling between the fixed and rotating parts of the engine.

Every force has an equal and opposite reaction, so when any engine/motor produces torque on its crankshaft/output shaft, there is an equal and opposite torque on the block/case. Even though the only physical connection may appear to be the bearings, in operation, an engine's case and output shaft are certainly not completely independant of each other with no 'force link' as Glacus was suggesting - if that was the case no engine/motor could produce any torque. The case and output shaft are very much powerfully coupled - by the force of gas pressure in piston or turbine engines, and by electromagnetic fields in an electric motor. So you can always think of any engine/motor as a case and output shaft pushing strongly and equally against each other. We normally make the case heavy and attach it to a vehicle or something so it doesn't spin itself, and have the output shaft driving wheels or whatever. But that powerful coupling between the fixed and rotating parts of an engine/motor is, for example, the reason why you need a tail rotor in a helicoptor, otherwise the fuselage would spin away in the opposite direction to the rotors - no turntable required. And why when you blip the throttle on a muscle car, even in neutral, the whole car will twist sideways in the opposite direction to the rotation of the crankshaft.

 

[Liampope]

It's just quite amusing after he was belittling, condescending and fairly insulting about everyone else's lack of understanding which turned out to be his. Fair enough I'm sure some people were arguing incorrect points but most of us weren't.

Yes that did make him look rather more silly. I generally tend to avoid speaking to people like that on the tiny off chance I'm wrong . Sometimes the hair-ripping frustration takes over though. I guess that makes it even more commendable that Glacus was able to admit his mistake, though.